At least Burnham shows more progressive thoughts and feelings (and has actually defended trans persons).
Burnham, a Catholic, carries a documented history as a vocal LGBTQ+ ally — one he's said cost him relationships inside his own family. He marched against Section 28 as a student in 1988, before he held any office worth protecting. From 2003 he voted almost wholesale for queer rights: repealing Section 28, civil partnerships, marriage equality, IVF access for lesbian couples. As mayor he hired a man the RAF had dumped for being gay, and last year formally apologized for how Greater Manchester Police treated queer people.
It turns out, however, that he's rejected some of those positions with respect to trans people (per the article Erin linked to).
For the US it's of somewhat "academic" interest, but the reason academics are interested in something is for the underlying driving force. I suspect that this piece is right on target: just as the slogan ("trans rights are human rights") goes, waffling on trans rights is waffling on human rights, and soon one has neither.
The constituency that really wants to vote for the Democrats (or Labour, or any other relatively left-leaning party) because of their support for other progressive policies but refuses to do so solely because of their stance on trans rights consists of ... J.K. Rowling, and that's pretty much it. A few TERFs here and there, maybe some transphobes estranged from their own family. A slice of the electorate too small to measure.
Anyone who votes for cruelty to trans people is also voting for cruelty to all queer people, to women, to immigrants, to the disabled, to non-Whites and non-Christians. And I think, either deep down or out in the open, they know this and are okay with it.
And the way a smart party opposes that is to quietly support trans people (or whatever other minority is under attack) while focusing on economic issues and demonstrating the fundamental unseriousness of the opposition.
The smartest politicians in the US are the ones loudly supporting trans people. Those refreshing campaigns that actually try to direct the narrative by putting trans kids & families in front, with fiery messaging about rights for all and how they won't abandon anyone. It makes them seem like fighters with genuine beliefs instead of wishy-washy politicians trying to trick people to get elected.
I'm not too familiar with UK politics, though. How has it worked for the politicians who've tried that type of campaign over there?
A follow-up comment: Activists who attack the Catholic Church for its sluggishness on queer issues should remember how hostile Protestant cultures have been to gender innovators throughout history. England is rooted in the Protestant-Puritanical fanaticism of the 16th-17the centuries, with their hostility to the body, to pleasure, and to elegant forms of art and self-representation (e.g. fashion).
As Max Weber observed, these attitudes jibe with Protestantism’s most fateful offspring: capitalism. Capitalism couldn’t thrive if people were busy spending time trying to satisfy their inner yearnings rather than doing what capitalists want us to do, which is to work our butts off mindlessly for exploitative wages until we die or they can “replace” us with half-wit AI and witless robots.
It is no coincidence that the sexual hysterics of Puritanism emerged in the same nation, England, that also spawned modern capitalist industrialism.
Result: The little nation that has always bragged about its diehard commitment to “freedom” (Winston Churchill, etc.) contradicted that brag in the 20th century by arresting its greatest scientist (Alan Turing), its greatest actor (John Gielgud), and one of its greatest wits (Quentin Crisp), all for being queer. (Having long self-identified as gay, Crisp decided he was transgender just before he died in his 90s.)
How long will it be before the English and American authorities start coming for the great thinkers and creatives in OUR ranks? And how long before Democrats cease to take seriously politicians like Newsom, that con man who would sell his soul to the devil for a few electoral votes in 2028?
There were many factors behind Starmer's resignation, including that he used nefarious methods to come into power. He was critiqued for moving Labour to the right and made life more difficult for many, not just trans people. The pattern of scapegoating groups with less political power is unfortunately common =/
I said this in response to one person's comment, but then I noticed some others making the same argument, so I decided to address it to all.
That argument, which is that "Labour's loss has more to do with things other than trans rights," is correct but utterly misses the point, which is that throwing trans folks under the bus didn't do the party a flipping bit of good. In fact, I suspect if anything it hurt them (although perhaps only a little) through loss of enthusiasm among those who hoped for an overall more progressive posture than they got.
The british people really did get a government with little to no difference from the conservatives before them; they had hoped to loose austerity, to end ridiculous anti social campaigning to distract people. And what they got was more of the same.
This is a very good breakdown of this aspect of it all. An important and wasily overlooked one for those not directly impacted.
I hope the anti trans positions from rhe UK aren't the only things that US politicians are taking note of. I hope they note that it hs utterly failed to being either party popularity.
"Shows Why Democrats Must Avoid Abandoning Trans People"
I devoutly hope it shows that. I hope 20/20 hindsight shows that too . . .
It would help if the Democrats adopted a plank calling for 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 241, & 18 U.S.C. § 242 investigation -- a la reconciliation hearings -- of those engineering, funding, and carrying out the propaganda campaign and enacting the laws and policies against transgender people . . .
. . . and prosecution for the worst of them who dissemble or conceal in any way, their activities.
I'm not shocked at this. I'm in the states and the few Dump supporters I know, Trans Rights is a non-issue. The dems seriously annoy me when they lose elections and turn around and think it has something to do with supporting trans rights.
I agree completely with Erin on this topic. Major erosion of our rights in the US can only come with some Democrat support. They scare me more than the enemy we know.
Very well said. There may be many reasons behind Starmer’s loss of support and the Labour Party’s fall in the polls, but clearly capitulating didn’t appease. It’s frustrating (and sometimes frightening) to see the Democrats fall this tactic.
We can hope, I think that Burnham will be better.
At least Burnham shows more progressive thoughts and feelings (and has actually defended trans persons).
Burnham, a Catholic, carries a documented history as a vocal LGBTQ+ ally — one he's said cost him relationships inside his own family. He marched against Section 28 as a student in 1988, before he held any office worth protecting. From 2003 he voted almost wholesale for queer rights: repealing Section 28, civil partnerships, marriage equality, IVF access for lesbian couples. As mayor he hired a man the RAF had dumped for being gay, and last year formally apologized for how Greater Manchester Police treated queer people.
https://thistleandmoss.com/p/what-survives-the-morning-blood-on-the-ledger-linden-on-the-tongue#queerisms-where-are-we-today
It turns out, however, that he's rejected some of those positions with respect to trans people (per the article Erin linked to).
For the US it's of somewhat "academic" interest, but the reason academics are interested in something is for the underlying driving force. I suspect that this piece is right on target: just as the slogan ("trans rights are human rights") goes, waffling on trans rights is waffling on human rights, and soon one has neither.
https://jaynasheats.substack.com/p/allies-dont-dig-tunnels-under-the
Any public figure who waffles on trans rights....or any rights for that matter, is one that should not be in "service".
Exactly right! Thanks, Erin.
The constituency that really wants to vote for the Democrats (or Labour, or any other relatively left-leaning party) because of their support for other progressive policies but refuses to do so solely because of their stance on trans rights consists of ... J.K. Rowling, and that's pretty much it. A few TERFs here and there, maybe some transphobes estranged from their own family. A slice of the electorate too small to measure.
Anyone who votes for cruelty to trans people is also voting for cruelty to all queer people, to women, to immigrants, to the disabled, to non-Whites and non-Christians. And I think, either deep down or out in the open, they know this and are okay with it.
The other problem is that Reform UK, Brits version of MAGA, is gaining ground and rabidly anti-trans.
And the way a smart party opposes that is to quietly support trans people (or whatever other minority is under attack) while focusing on economic issues and demonstrating the fundamental unseriousness of the opposition.
Let's hope Labour under Burnham is a smart party.
It would be refreshing to be shocked by that kind of turn about, wouldn’t it?
The smartest politicians in the US are the ones loudly supporting trans people. Those refreshing campaigns that actually try to direct the narrative by putting trans kids & families in front, with fiery messaging about rights for all and how they won't abandon anyone. It makes them seem like fighters with genuine beliefs instead of wishy-washy politicians trying to trick people to get elected.
I'm not too familiar with UK politics, though. How has it worked for the politicians who've tried that type of campaign over there?
A follow-up comment: Activists who attack the Catholic Church for its sluggishness on queer issues should remember how hostile Protestant cultures have been to gender innovators throughout history. England is rooted in the Protestant-Puritanical fanaticism of the 16th-17the centuries, with their hostility to the body, to pleasure, and to elegant forms of art and self-representation (e.g. fashion).
As Max Weber observed, these attitudes jibe with Protestantism’s most fateful offspring: capitalism. Capitalism couldn’t thrive if people were busy spending time trying to satisfy their inner yearnings rather than doing what capitalists want us to do, which is to work our butts off mindlessly for exploitative wages until we die or they can “replace” us with half-wit AI and witless robots.
It is no coincidence that the sexual hysterics of Puritanism emerged in the same nation, England, that also spawned modern capitalist industrialism.
Result: The little nation that has always bragged about its diehard commitment to “freedom” (Winston Churchill, etc.) contradicted that brag in the 20th century by arresting its greatest scientist (Alan Turing), its greatest actor (John Gielgud), and one of its greatest wits (Quentin Crisp), all for being queer. (Having long self-identified as gay, Crisp decided he was transgender just before he died in his 90s.)
How long will it be before the English and American authorities start coming for the great thinkers and creatives in OUR ranks? And how long before Democrats cease to take seriously politicians like Newsom, that con man who would sell his soul to the devil for a few electoral votes in 2028?
— Jennifer Keay Davidson
There were many factors behind Starmer's resignation, including that he used nefarious methods to come into power. He was critiqued for moving Labour to the right and made life more difficult for many, not just trans people. The pattern of scapegoating groups with less political power is unfortunately common =/
This is one of your strongest posts, Erin.
I said this in response to one person's comment, but then I noticed some others making the same argument, so I decided to address it to all.
That argument, which is that "Labour's loss has more to do with things other than trans rights," is correct but utterly misses the point, which is that throwing trans folks under the bus didn't do the party a flipping bit of good. In fact, I suspect if anything it hurt them (although perhaps only a little) through loss of enthusiasm among those who hoped for an overall more progressive posture than they got.
I hope the dems don’t cave, but when you even have Buttigieg making anti-trans comments, it’s hard to keep that hope.
The british people really did get a government with little to no difference from the conservatives before them; they had hoped to loose austerity, to end ridiculous anti social campaigning to distract people. And what they got was more of the same.
This is a very good breakdown of this aspect of it all. An important and wasily overlooked one for those not directly impacted.
I hope the anti trans positions from rhe UK aren't the only things that US politicians are taking note of. I hope they note that it hs utterly failed to being either party popularity.
"Shows Why Democrats Must Avoid Abandoning Trans People"
I devoutly hope it shows that. I hope 20/20 hindsight shows that too . . .
It would help if the Democrats adopted a plank calling for 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 241, & 18 U.S.C. § 242 investigation -- a la reconciliation hearings -- of those engineering, funding, and carrying out the propaganda campaign and enacting the laws and policies against transgender people . . .
. . . and prosecution for the worst of them who dissemble or conceal in any way, their activities.
Thank you, Erin.
thank you, for all of us and esp for linking disabled folks in the long list of who the dems may try to throw to the wolves. all of us or none.
I'm not shocked at this. I'm in the states and the few Dump supporters I know, Trans Rights is a non-issue. The dems seriously annoy me when they lose elections and turn around and think it has something to do with supporting trans rights.
I agree completely with Erin on this topic. Major erosion of our rights in the US can only come with some Democrat support. They scare me more than the enemy we know.
Very well said. There may be many reasons behind Starmer’s loss of support and the Labour Party’s fall in the polls, but clearly capitulating didn’t appease. It’s frustrating (and sometimes frightening) to see the Democrats fall this tactic.
Excellent piece, Erin! Well said!